Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Petitions, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased and honoured to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Winnipeg North Centre and other Manitobans who are very concerned about Canada's retirement system.

They are worried about changes in the works that are being discussed. They petition the government to rescind Bill C-2 and to establish a national review of the retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and tomorrow.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North Centre and from other Manitobans, reflecting their concerns with respect to proposed and current changes to Canada's retirement system.

The petitioners call upon this government to rescind Bill C-2 and to put in place a national review of the retirement income system in Canada in order to ensure adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and tomorrow.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of a good number of constituents of mine.

The petitioners call on this government to take serious my constituents' concerns about changes to the Canada pension plan and to propose changes to the seniors benefit. Many of these constituents are senior citizens who know the benefits of a comprehensive pension system.

They are concerned about the future of their children and their grandchildren. They call on the government to rescind Bill C-2, which they believe imposes massive CPP premium hikes while it reduces benefits. They call for changes in the financial arrangements to provide for a more effective mechanisms of investment than that proposed in Bill C-2. They call on the House for a national review of the retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and tomorrow.

[Aids, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Five years ago the Prime Minister promised $55 million per year for a national AIDS strategy. Today the health minister basically announced the status quo, coming in at $42 million per year despite a 50% increase in the rate of HIV infection over the past five years.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the HIV-AIDS crisis is even more serious today than when the government promised $55 million? Will he commit to a plan that makes a real difference in stopping this deadly disease?

[People's Tax Form Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to join with my colleagues in the Chamber to debate Bill C-214, the People's Tax Form Act.

At first glance the bill seems to be quite interesting. It even sounds great. I do not think a soul in the Chamber does not support the basic premise that taxpayers, the citizens of the country, have the right to have their views considered on how government spends tax dollars.

However one has to ask if this is the way to address the concerns. Is this getting to the heart of the matter when it comes to people's sense of being disenfranchised? Are there not other steps that must be taken first before we look at establishing another form that requires a great deal of knowledge to complete?

This will in some cases be seen as an unnecessary piece of mail. The major concern of taxpayers is to feel confident the government is prepared to achieve tax fairness and to address the concerns working men and women deal with on a daily basis.

For example, a few years ago one of my constituents had a full time job at a brewery in Winnipeg. The brewery closed down and my constituent lost the full time job he had held for many years. He found a part time job. Then he found another part time job to supplement his income. He is doing night courses to retrain for some other field, for some other hope in the distant future. He has a couple of kids. His partner works. They are all juggling work and family responsibilities to try to make ends meet. They are barely surviving. They got a call from Revenue Canada saying that they owe taxes on the RRSP they had to cash in.

This person was dealing with an institution which did not make the tax deductions at source. This person who is barely making ends meet was suddenly faced with an adamant voice on the other end of the phone from Revenue Canada saying “Too bad, you have to give us something. We need something. You have to pay some of the taxes”.

He asked me “How is it that I am getting harassed on a day to day basis over this kind of situation when so many wealthy people in society and so many big corporations are able to avoid paying taxes, to take advantage of loopholes, to take advantage of deferred taxes, to invest in all kinds of areas and not to pay immediate taxes?”

I raise this situation because it demonstrates where people are at today and what is important. They are saying that the first pressing issue for them is to have some fairness in the system. Sure, they would like to have a say, but the government should first address the fundamental issue of how they survive on a day to day basis, given the present tax structure.

They are saying that there is a heck of a lot of other ways to make government more accountable than having another form come in the mail which takes time, knowledge and resources to complete. They are saying that the government could be more accountable if it was willing to do so right now without the additional forms or paperwork.

The current pre-budget consultations are relevant to this debate. We had round table discussions. The Minister of Finance went across the country and held discussions. Some people had a chance to participate. A small number in each town were allowed to participate but certainly not a vast number of people.

What was even more galling to the folk who saw that as somewhat of an opportunity to participate in the decision making process was that they learned, all the while the pre-budget consultations were going on, the Minister of Finance was meeting with his cabinet colleagues and making decisions about how the budget would be allocated.

If we want to start somewhere in terms of restoring people's confidence in government, letting people know they have some say in how tax dollars are spent, and giving them the sense that some day there might be a bit of tax fairness in our system, we need to start with our own house. We must get our own house in order. We must ensure that the government practises honest and real accountability and does not create some pretence that it is consulting with the people when all the while it has a set agenda.

I have a few other suggestions. Why not ensure much more open and transparent debate in the House and across the country? What does it do to people's confidence in democracy and in parliament when the government readily introduces closure and cuts off debate? It denies us the opportunity to contribute the feelings and beliefs of our constituents on an important issue such as changes to the Canada pension plan.

We are talking about restoring confidence in the system, in the government and in people's ability to influence decisions. What about putting an end to the appointments of MPs who have either decided not to run or who were defeated at the polls? These are patronage appointments for defeated MPs turfed out by the electorate because they did not win the confidence of the people in their constituencies. They suddenly find themselves in a lucrative position with as much power, if not more power, as a member of the Chamber.

Many people have made other suggestions. We need to look at a more simplified tax form so people can see what is happening in terms of their own situation and get a better handle on where their money is actually going.

I made the suggestion again today of the need for a tax ombudsperson, someone people can turn to for raising their concerns when they feel their minister of finance or their elected representative is not responsive. We could give more powers to the auditor general to make his recommendations a much more meaningful part of our decision making process.

The list goes on. It comes down to trying to restore people's faith and confidence in government, in parliament and in politicians. While the idea of the bill seems great at first glance, it is not the solution at this time. It is not an appropriate mechanism for dealing with those kinds of concerns. People want to see us act to put in place measures that will guarantee them a voice in this place.

We have to do that by improving our methods of accountability. We have to try to encourage the government to hold honest and open discussion on such things as pre-budget consultations and on major legislation such as the Canada pension plan.

We have to be able to show people that we are always accountable and do whatever we can to hold round tables in our own constituencies, to get the information out about developments in parliament and to give people a chance to give feedback to us. We need the opportunity to convey those sentiments in the Chamber.

While I appreciate the efforts of the Reform member in introducing the bill, my feeling and the feeling of members of my caucus is that this is not the appropriate mechanism at this time. There are many more ways to address the concerns of people.

Let me conclude by saying that if there is anything we have learned as members of Parliament at a time when people are so cynical and sceptical about politicians, it is that we must go the extra mile to restore that confidence.

Instead of talking all the time about deregulating, privatizing, offloading and cutting back in terms of government responsibilities, we should be truly talking about democratization. This is the greatest service we could provide to Canadians.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on this group of amendments to Bill C-2 sponsored by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who has done my party and the Chamber a great service by doing such a thorough job of researching and presenting alternatives to the provisions before us as a whole.

If Stanley Knowles were here today he would be very proud of the work being done by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and others. When Stanley Knowles passed away we said the best way we could honour his legacy would be to stand up for the programs he pioneered and to fight against any erosion, cutbacks or plans to terminate those very important programs.

If he were here today he would have stood in the House and said to members of the Liberal government that they were doing a great disservice to Canadians and to our history and traditions of working together to ensure that everyone is guaranteed some measure of equality upon retirement.

He would have said the proposals before us today in the form of Bill C-2 are a fundamental departure from everything we hold near and dear as Canadians, from the values of caring and sharing which have built the country. He would have said to the Reform member for Calgary—Nose Hill that she was wrong to spread the myths and misinformation that have characterized this discussion.

He would have reminded all of us that we were talking about a system which was not in crisis. It is a plan that needs adjustment and changes but one that should not be changed so fundamentally as to cause its inevitable destruction.

He would have said that we need balance. We need to look at the sustainability of the Canada pension plan for the future. That would mean some adjustment in the rates. That would mean some changes in the benefit structure. That would mean some increases in premiums. However these points must be balanced with our sense of valuing human dignity in society today.

He would have said to the Reform member she was wrong to suggest that the Canada pension plan was or should be a personal savings plan. He would have said it was a social insurance program in the best sense of the words.

He would have said that when Canadians supported the Canada pension plan originally they agreed to get together to pool the risk of providing for the loss of income we all face when we retire or become disabled. In so doing all of us as Canadians work to create citizenship rights or entitlements that reflect a collective responsibility for and to future seniors. He would have told Reform members and the Liberal government not to tamper with a program, which means so much to Canadians, to the point where they will cause its demise.

He would have said this was not supposed to be a program or a policy based totally on fiscal management but was about human worth. He would have said that this was not about the Reform view of society that this is a dog eat dog or survival of the fittest world. The plan was originally intended to do the opposite and any amendments to the Canada pension plan should uphold those principles and those values. He would have given our caucus all the support he could have mustered, for the amendments we are proposing today are right and just and deserve the support of every member of the Chamber.

In that context I want to focus specifically on a half dozen amendments before us in this grouping, the amendments that deindex the year's basic exemption of $3,500. All of us by now should be aware that would download the burden of premium hikes to low income earners.

I want to talk about our amendment which seeks to change Bill C-2 in terms of its unfair burden on those who seek self-employment. I want to support our amendment which addresses the government's attempt to alter the benefit formula calculation, leaving a net effect of reducing benefits.

I want to support our amendment which addresses the government's proposal to change minimum contribution requirements for a disability benefit, the net effect being a reduction in disability benefits.

I want to support our amendment which addresses the government's proposal to set maximum pensionable earnings at $35,800 so that those who make over the maximum pensionable earnings pay a lesser share than those who make under the MPE.

I want to support our amendment that addresses the government's attempt to reduce benefits in general for people with disabilities and for survivors. In every one of those amendments we are attempting to stand for those people who are most likely to be forced into poverty. Our amendments would raise people above poverty or remove them from poverty so that they can live their retirement years with dignity, respect and some sense of security.

Is it not ironic that today we are discussing provisions in a bill which disproportionately affect the lowest income people in society, that disproportionately affect women and that place the greatest burden in a negative way on people with disabilities?

Is it not interesting that we are debating those issues on a day when Campaign 2000 came out with its report card on child poverty in Canada? The report card shows that Canada is second from the bottom in terms of the wage gap between the rich and the poor, second from the bottom out of nine selected OECD countries at the same time as being second from the top in terms of having the greatest comparative national wealth.

When we are talking about the gap between rich children and poor children we are talking about the gap between rich families and poor families. Children are poor because their parents are poor. The last thing in the world we should be doing today is anything that will widen the gap even further and will relegate poor children to absolute destitute poverty when they reach the age of 65.

Is it not enough that we have one of the worst records of any developed country when it comes to treatment of women?

Is it not appalling that we are talking about amendments that will put women further into poverty when we know we are already dealing with a situation in Canada where many women live below the poverty line and where the majority of older women live in poverty?

I refer to a report by our own legislative library on women and poverty: “Much contemporary research also indicates that most women in Canada can expect to live their later years in poverty. Statistics show that 45% of unattached women between the ages of 70 and 74 live in poverty. The figure rises to 57% for women in the age group of 75 to 79 and skyrockets to 75% for women 80 years of age and over”.

The report goes on to state that part of the explanation for such high poverty rates for the elderly lies in the inadequacy of the existing income security programs.

The National Council on Welfare has determined that in 1992 maximum benefits from the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement for a couple living in a large city were more than $2,000 below the poverty line. For unattached pensioners living in a large city the gap was $3,460. And we today want to make that situation even worse? We want to put more women into poverty? We want to ensure that just because you are a woman, when you become old you are designated to live in abject poverty?

Why are we not thinking about ways to have a balanced approach to income retirement security in this country? Why are we not looking at ways to ensure people can live with dignity and some sense of security after they have spent their working lives trying to contribute to this country? They have raised children, they have tried to hold down their jobs, they have juggled family and work responsibilities, they have participated in the community, they have gone to school advisory meetings to try to help on every front and we say that their entitlement after doing all of that is to live in poverty.

Our amendments are an attempt to address that fact, and it is a fact. It is a fact with this legislation. If Bill C-2 goes forward as this government is so determined to have happen, without real debate, without accepting any suggestions, without listening to any of these amendments, we will see that day, and that can only be described as the most irresponsible action any government could ever take, to deliberately go forward with a policy that will hurt women, people with disabilities and low income people in our society.

This is after the government promised that any social policy initiatives would have a gender analysis. Where is the gender analysis? All we heard from the Minister of Finance was that an analysis was done which showed that women will benefit most from these changes because they live longer. My goodness, what an insult to suggest that because women live longer we should be satisfied with the fact that we are getting anything at all even if it is greatly reduced, even if we are talking about peanuts every month.

Surely in a civilized society we should ensure that everyone is entitled to decent security in their old age, in retirement and when faced with disability. That is our goal today, to try to make sure the government listens and accepts these amendments so we can move forward to ensure we have a great nation of equality, dignity and security.

[Krever Inquiry, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, wrongdoings and shortcomings in the federal government are written all over the Krever report. The failure to demand surrogate testing, the failure to play an active role in the regulation of the blood supply and so on, all implicate the federal government.

Will the minister today agree to immediately review the Krever report to see if there was any dereliction of duty in the adherence and the enforcement of the Food and Drug Act and would he agree to refer this whole report to the solicitor general to see if there was any wrongdoing?

[Krever Inquiry, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Krever is very clear about the federal role in the blood scandal and the shortcomings in the health protection branch.

Everything he calls for flies in the face of the minister's own actions like the elimination of the Drug Research Bureau and his plans for further deregulation, privatization and cost recovery as outlined in his department's September discussion paper entitled “Keeping Faith with Canadians”.

Will the minister start by keeping faith with the victims of Canada's contaminated blood supply and send a message today that deregulation is over?

[Criminal Code, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to a situation in our society, prostitution. I believe my comments will generally reflect the sentiments of members of the New Democratic Party caucus.

The issue of prostitution is certainly one that many in this Chamber face on a day to day basis. My constituency of Winnipeg North Centre is very much an inner city, north end community in Winnipeg. This issue has been before us for years. There has been much community work, much active participation by citizens to address this issue. Community members have come together. Members of the aboriginal community, members of other ethnic groups, members involved in trying to seek some sense of quality of life in our community have come together to try to address a very serious issue.

In the context of this debate we all acknowledge this is a serious issue. But if I went back to those groups that have been working on this problem for so many years and presented this option, this solution from the Reform Party, I think I would be greeted with “oh no, not again, here we go, another attempt to try to solve this problem through legal provisions, another attempt to spend more money, more time, more effort on Criminal Code sanctions, another attempt to scratch the surface of this issue and never go beyond”.

I know members in my community want to see this Parliament for once take this issue seriously by getting at the root causes of the problem. Reform Party members can make all the disparaging comments they want about the New Democratic Party and our policies on this issue, but I suggest that if we do not start to address the root causes of prostitution then we will never get a handle on this issue.

We have been dealing with legal matters and Criminal Code sanctions in this Chamber for over two decades. It goes back to 1970. I have read through some of the efforts. There have been committees and studies on this matter. The list is endless. The time, the effort, the money that has gone into the study of legal provisions or Criminal Code sanctions to deal with prostitution is endless and there is hardly any time devoted to getting at the root causes of this issue.

If we had just spent a fraction of the time and money that has gone into this issue in terms of legal sanctions and put the effort into matters of poverty, despair, loneliness and deprivation that force people into prostitution, maybe today we would be able to say we made a difference and that we have begun to crack down on the problem. That is something we all want to see. But no, we have spent all this time looking for an easy fix.

Today's proposal from the Reform Party is just that, a simple solution, a quick answer to something that is far more complex than is acknowledged.

There have been a number of studies dating back to 1970, justice committee reports, independent commissions and legislative proposals, changes to the Criminal Code. I do not think that we can conclude from all of this that we have made much of a difference. I do not think we have really done anything to reduce the incidence of prostitution in our communities today.

Most of the studies suggest that the problem is actually getting worse. If we go through some of the literature, and I refer specifically to the good work done by our own parliamentary research branch, a February 1997 study of street prostitution by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics shows a sharp increase in the number of prostitution related incidents recorded by police since 1995.

I have not studied all the reasons for that sharp increase, but I dare say that it is not because of all the time we have spent studying the legal and Criminal Code provisions that surround the issue. It is because we as a society have not really addressed the cause at the root of it all. How are we going to stop people from being forced into prostitution or taking advantage of vulnerable people if we do not look at the situation?

It is interesting that Reform presents this quick fix, this simplistic solution. When we have tried to convince members of the Reform Party to get serious about the root causes of prostitution, they refuse to get involved. When we on this side of the House presented a motion for the government to set targets to reduce unemployment and poverty, where were Reform members on the issue? What did they do? They voted no. They would have nothing to do with that kind of proactive approach which does address the very root causes of prostitution.

Other studies show how serious the situation is and the problem is not going away. Much as the Reform Party would like to get it out of sight so it is out of mind, it is not going away because we have not dealt with it in a systematic way by looking at the systemic roots of the problem.

My colleague from Vancouver East has reported to me that very recently the Positive Women's Network in Vancouver reported a 160% increase in the last two years in its membership, most of whom are women living in poverty, many involved in the sex trade and many facing addiction.

Those kinds of statistics showing an increase in street solicitation, the sex trade, prostitution, are related directly to the economic situation, growing poverty, despair, loneliness, isolation and deprivation, a sense of no hope in terms of future economic opportunities. They are tied directly to the economic situation in this country. We have seen for the 85th month in a row unemployment above 9%.

With all those factors, growing unemployment, growing poverty and a growing gap between rich and poor, more and more people turning to undesirable ways to stay alive out of desperation, it does not take a lot to figure out that unless we deal with those root causes we are not going to make prostitution go away.

I know that the communities that I work with in Winnipeg North Centre would like us to look at the root causes, to address poverty, to address the hopelessness among children and young people who are lured by the unscrupulous behaviour of pimps in our society, taking advantage of everyone who is desperate to survive in this world.

I know the sense of desperation that single parent women feel just trying to make sure they can put food on the table.

I know how people are trying to stay alive in society today and what desperate means they will turn to.

I would suggest to the Reform Party and to all members of the House that if we could turn our attention to the very issues that give rise to prostitution in our society today, maybe we could make a difference. Maybe we could change things for the better so that people are not forced to resort to something as horrible as prostitution, selling their bodies to make money.

Who in our society today would do that willingly, unless out of desperation and absolute despair about how they will survive?

Let us put our energies into the roots of the problem and not deal with the superficial symptoms of something as serious as prostitution in our communities today.

[Privilege, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 48, I raise a question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of a committee report. I base this question on new information obtained through access to information.

On October 1, 1997 I raised a question of privilege on a related matter, namely that a breach of privilege occurred when the industry committee's in camera draft report was released to the public. I indicated then that according to access to information documents the industry minister and industry department bureaucrats were in possession on April 18, 1997 of draft copies of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.

The final report of the committee entitled “Review of section 14 of the Patent Act amendment, 1992” was reported to the House of Commons on April 23, 1997, five days later. On October 9, 1997 the Speaker ruled that while the matter raised was important, it was not appropriate for the Speaker to intervene at that time and I stress at that time.

Access to information files show that House of Commons legal counsel argued on August 25, 1997 that the release of the draft committee report “could give rise to a question of parliamentary privilege”. At the time legal counsel advised that the draft report not be released. The letter and subsequent release of the draft report would indicate there are no formal rules governing the handling of committee documents.

I would contend that if the House of Commons precedent is the guide, the new information obtained through access to information provides the Speaker with the authority to intervene at this time since on August 25, 1997 it now appears House of Commons legal counsel was made aware the draft report would be released.

Responsibility for House of Commons legal counsel lies with the Speaker. This new information indicates the matter should therefore be dealt with by the House of Commons as a whole and not left in the hands of committees themselves.

By the same token a new element to the body of precedent in these matters has been introduced since persons under your responsibility were consulted and their advice on a matter of parliamentary privilege was not followed.

In the October 9, 1997 ruling, the Speaker referenced Speaker Fraser's December 7, 1991 decision indicating the Chair does not intervene in the proceedings of a committee unless a problem has been reported by the committee to the House, or in extremely unusual circumstances. The new information indicates there are indeed unusual circumstances.

For clarity I again refer to Beauchesne citation 877 on page 241 which states that no act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been presented to the House. Beauchesne citation 877 also states that the publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to members will constitute a breach of privilege. Also Beauchesne citation 57, page 18 states “the House has in the past regarded the publication of the proceedings or reports of committees sitting in camera to be a breach of privilege”.

Therefore I move that this House refer the matter regarding rules for the handling of committee documents to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.